IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
K. Manmadha Rao, J.
K. Kasipathi, S/o. Late Subba Rayudu - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department - Respondents
Writ Petition No.3081 of 2022
Decided On : 20-09-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition for mandamus - Petitioner sought to declare the action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing show cause notice and fixing liability as illegal and unconstitutional - The right to receive pension is recognized as a constitutional right under Article 300A - The court directed a fresh inquiry to be conducted within eight weeks regarding the petitioner's retirement benefits. (Paras 11 and 12)
(B) Gratuity Act - The provisions of the Gratuity Act are social welfare measures aimed at providing financial security to employees post-retirement - The court emphasized that pension is a deferred portion of compensation for services rendered and cannot be withheld without statutory authority. (Paras 7 and 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, after 31 years of service, faced disciplinary action and was suspended without involvement in the alleged crime, leading to a dispute over his retirement benefits.
Findings of Court:
The court found the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner's request for retirement benefits to be illegal and arbitrary, directing a fresh inquiry.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents could withhold retirement benefits without statutory authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that pension and gratuity are rights protected under the Constitution and cannot be denied without lawful authority.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions for inquiry.
ORDER :
K. Manmadha Rao, J.
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following relief:
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Paid Secretary in PACS, Gavaravaram, Chodavaram Taluk, Visakhapatnam District. Subsequently, he was absorbed in the DCC Bank Ltd., Visakhapatnam as a Staff Assistant. Later he was promoted as Assistant Manager and thereafter he was promotedas Branch Manager and worked in Visakahapatnam Main branch and completed 31 years of service without any remark. While the matter stood thus, the disciplinary authority has issued the impugned proceedings suspended the petitioner from service when he was worked as Manager in Yelamanchili Branch, Visakhapatam. It is further stated that the then Assistant General Manager, DCC Bank Ltd., lodged a police complaint against the Gold Appraiser of DCC Bank namely L. Prakasa Rao and his family members to the S.H.O. I town Police Station Visakhapatnam. In pursuance of the same, a crime in Crime No.51/2014 was registered against the Gold Appraiser and his family members for the offences U/s. 420 of IPC R/w S.34 of IPC and the Criminal case is pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner has not involved in the above said crime but the Bank authorities unnecessarily suspended him from service and issued charge memo. Thereafter,the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges levelled against him and requested the authorities to drop the said charges and to take appropriate action against the Gold Appraiser and his family members and to recover the fake gold loan amount of Rs.24,51,500/- from the said members. After considering explanation, the authority issued reinstatement orders pending enquiry and posted the petitioner as a Manager at Chodavaram Branch, Visakhapatnam. Basing on report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority has issued show cause notice calling for explanation and the petitioner has submitted his explanation. The petitioner was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The 3rd respondent directed the petitioner to pay the 30% of corpus fund Rs.1,96,846/- on 20.4.2017 but the bank authorities without consent deducted the said amount from petitioner’s retirement benefits and grantedRs.3,500/- as monthly pension. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent, but no action has been taken. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.
4. On verifying the proceeding sheet, on 12.08.2024, this Court held that, on an earlier occasion i.e., on 12.7.2024, Smt.V.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel was directed to take steps to comply with the objections raised in the counter before the Registry. But till date, the objections are not complied with and no counsel is representing the 2nd respondent since long time. In view of the same, the right of the 2nd respondent to file counter is hereby forfeited.
5. Heard Sri S.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Ms.P.Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II and Smt. V. Uma Devi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments made in the petition, submits that, the petitioner was retired
The right to receive pension is a constitutional right under Article 300A, and cannot be withheld without lawful authority.
Disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against a retired employee unless they were already in progress before retirement, as per established legal principles.
Exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, as far as justiciability of order of penalty is concerned - Order of penalty so confirmed by appellate authority and prayers made in ....
Disciplinary proceedings against retired employees are barred if events occurred over four years prior to charge issuance; pension and gratuity cannot be withheld without proven moral turpitude invol....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.